‘Unacceptable’: Delhi HC Slams ‘Jeans Can Corrupt Boys’ Argument, Convicts Man For Sexual Harassment

Delhi HC convicted a man of sexually harassing his neighbour, rejecting questions about her clothing. The court said attire is a personal choice and cannot justify misconduct.

Delhi HC convicted a man of sexually harassing his neighbour, rejecting questions about her clothing.

Source : ANI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• Delhi High Court rejected clothing as sexual misconduct justification.
• Court convicted man, overturning his prior trial court acquittal.
• High Court criticized irrelevant questioning regarding victim's attire.

The Delhi High Court has strongly rejected the notion that a woman's choice of clothing can justify or explain sexual misconduct, observing that what a girl or woman wears is a matter of personal choice.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the remarks while convicting a man of sexually harassing his neighbour in 2013. The woman had alleged that the accused stalked her, made sexually coloured remarks and touched her inappropriately.

The case reached the High Court after the State challenged the man's acquittal by a trial court in 2014. The High Court took exception to the manner in which the complainant was questioned during the trial, particularly questions about her western clothing, religion and objections from people in the locality to what she wore.

‘None Of Their Concern’

“What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice,” the court said, adding that neither neighbours, society, the accused nor lawyers appearing in court have any right to dictate a woman's clothing.

The court said the suggestion that a woman wearing jeans could “corrupt young boys” reflected a “deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset”.

It stressed that the solution does not lie in controlling the clothes worn by girls and women.

“Parents and society must instead teach their children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat every human with dignity,” the court observed.

Court Slams ‘Irrelevant’ Cross-Examination

Justice Sudha said the cross-examination of the complainant was “wholly irrelevant and improper” and should have been stopped by the trial court at the outset.

The High Court held that questions concerning a woman's clothing, character, lifestyle, religion or personal choices should not be allowed unless they are directly relevant to an issue arising in the case.

The court also observed that even a woman of “easy virtue” was entitled to protect her person, stressing that the only issue before it was whether an offence had been committed.

“The religion of the residents of the locality, and the clothes worn by her have no connection with that issue,” the court said.

It added that the complainant's clothing, even if it was not considered acceptable by the accused or others in the neighbourhood, was no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

Acquittal Set Aside, Accused Convicted

The High Court held that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused and found that the evidence on record established an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.

The court accordingly convicted the accused under the provision for sexually harassing the complainant.

However, it ruled that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act could not be invoked because the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily establish that the girl was a minor.